One of the reasons that Alberto Gonzales has no street cred as a
whatever-ethnographic-epithet-you-want-to-call-him-American is
because of the widespread impression/understanding that the
President installed him on the basis of precisely that status. A
worse -- meaning more potent -- reason is the
impression/understanding that the President picked Gonzales because
of the unique confluence of that status and Gonzales' status as Pal
of the President.
Both these factors -- whether 100% true or only 50% true --
reverberate across the entire irritating panorama of one of this
Administration's most irritating traits -- sticking friends in high
places. What's so irritating about it has nothing to do with any
particular friend or any particular place, but rather the total
package, which has time and again taken the form of an apparently
total obliviousness to the toll that loyalism as a habit takes on
perceptions of legitimacy. When things are good, no one cares, but
when things turn, which they always do during presidencies, the
weak point that it is cries out for a good hammering.
This is dumbell politics, pure and simple, if nothing else. It
zonked out Harriet Miers in the incredibly narrow window of
zonkability that opens between nomination and hearings. It zonked
out Kerik (sigh). And it's what'll zonk out Gonzales. Nobody, not
nobody, has any reason to go to the mat for Al. And building that
dynamic into your party, against what will always be their wishes
(for partisans like nothing better, and deserve nothing sweeter,
than to be justifiably partisan), is a wretched, needless
misfortune -- one which seems likely to jaundice Bush's afterimage
among Republicans for a long time to come. What's worse, beyond
intra-party politics it plays into the hands of partisan Democrats,
muddling the difference between legitimate Congressional inquiry
and fish hunts-and-witching expeditions. I think for thoughtful
rank-and-filers it's that which is probably the unforgivable
part.